Quote:Ah yes, sky daddy's mysterious plan. You have to beg the fucker to get you that new job you applied for but when it comes to a six year old girl being raped and killed by her mother's live in boyfriend.... he's got all that shit planned out ahead of time.

Disgusting.

I want to be laser-clear on this with everyone. I am not a predestinarian like KC, although I appreciate his love of God and his scholarship. There is no "mysterious plan" to me.

1. A rapist has free will as does a victim. If one is taken away then not everyone has free will.

2. Jesus is able to cleanse away even the memories of suffering and abuse.

3. Christians can see God's hand in working despite suffering and yet condemn/judge/imprison the perpetrators. On what evolutionary, naturalist basis do you see someone procreating by force (the stronger vs. the weaker) and say, "Disgusting"? How do you contrive a moral platform touching a naturalistic, instinctual, procreative act?

Thanks.

"2. Jesus is able to cleanse away even the memories of suffering and abuse."

As Hitchens would say...the celestial dictator is guilty of thought control. He's not really, of course, but it's amazing that Jeebus supporters think he is and that it's a good thing.

Quote:Ah yes, sky daddy's mysterious plan. You have to beg the fucker to get you that new job you applied for but when it comes to a six year old girl being raped and killed by her mother's live in boyfriend.... he's got all that shit planned out ahead of time.

Disgusting.

I want to be laser-clear on this with everyone. I am not a predestinarian like KC, although I appreciate his love of God and his scholarship. There is no "mysterious plan" to me.

1. A rapist has free will as does a victim. If one is taken away then not everyone has free will.

2. Jesus is able to cleanse away even the memories of suffering and abuse.

3. Christians can see God's hand in working despite suffering and yet condemn/judge/imprison the perpetrators. On what evolutionary, naturalist basis do you see someone procreating by force (the stronger vs. the weaker) and say, "Disgusting"? How do you contrive a moral platform touching a naturalistic, instinctual, procreative act?

Thanks.

1. I don't know what you mean by this. Can you re-phrase it?

2. Jesus isn't real. The subconscious mind can use dissociation and a number of other tactics to suppress the memories of suffering and abuse but those memories are always there. Even when the conscious mind tries to use magic to hide them.

3. I'm well aware that Christians have difficulty discerning what is and isn't moral. And that they see things in their minds that make them believe in moral relativism. Lastly, are you asking me how I can see rape and be disgusted by it? It's very simple, syllogistically:

• Initiating force/violence against another human being is immoral.

• Rape is the initiation of force, through violence.

• Therefore, rape is immoral.

↑ That's what I was talking about with Christians and moral relativism. You guys think violence is a good thing if used according to your opinion of what is right and wrong. I don't.

Why don't I? Because when someone uses force, coercion or violence against me, it harms me (either physically or emotionally or both) and I don't like to be harmed, to harm other people or see other people harmed.

In simple terms, I possess empathy, which is something that children of religious people often never are allowed to develop and when they do, they are confused by it as a result of the moral relativism that is all too often beaten into them. But it's also sad to see, not unlike seeing a person who suffers from severe addiction.

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb

I see. So no one here understand God's omnipotence in context. Take your Christian choice of 1) He foreordains all 2) His will does not countermand our free will, in the same way that I have children and want them to exercise free will rather than beat them down and make them mindless robots.

Of course, NO ONE has yet responded to my question, "How can you say rape is wrong from a purely naturalistic standpoint since forcible intercourse is frequent in the natural world?"

(16-04-2013 09:27 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote: Of course, NO ONE has yet responded to my question, "How can you say rape is wrong from a purely naturalistic standpoint since forcible intercourse is frequent in the natural world?"

I once asked a friend of mine a very similar question. He's a PhD in biology and works for the CDC, so I respect his scientific opinion. I was wondering why some people don't want to have children, but still have a sex drive.

His response was that traits that were once useful for survival cannot keep up with changes in human society. At one time, he said, it was probably beneficial for humans (or our ancestors) to be able to rape, posses physical skills required for hunting, etc. It may have been essential for the survival and spread of our species. As society has developed, these traits are no longer needed. Most of us do not have to kill our own food, make our own tools, etc. Intelligence is now more beneficial than the capacity for violent behavior. There is no longer any 'gain' to be had from rape. Quite the opposite, fortunately. Many societal factors now influence the decision to have children, not limited to money, time, and personal freedom. I doubt ancient mankind gave a rat's ass about any of these. Yet the instinctual drive to breed remains.

Traits can take thousands of years to be 'bred out' of the gene pool, if ever.

If Jesus died for our sins, why is there still sin? If man was created from dust, why is there still dust? If Americans came from Europe, why are there still Europeans?

Quote:Initiating force/violence against another human being is immoral.

A false syllogism since the initial premise is utterly false.

How can you say that? How can you even use the word immoral? Are you sure you didn't mean to write "unethical"?

Initiating force/violence against another creature is done in the natural world for:

*Food
*Shelter
*MATING RIGHTS AND PRIVILIGES
*Pack leadership
*Etc.

Rape is fine if you're a Darwinist. Go ahead and tell us all why it's otherwise, please.

All of those things you mention are done in order for the species or group to survive. In some instances that happens at the expense of the individual. I seem to remember reading somewhere a couple of rare examples where certain traits/behaviors benefited the individual not the group but I can't remember what those are atm.

As man has evolved greater mental capacity and societies became more complex, the rights of the individual over the group have emerged and have taken equal footing and in some instances a superior position compared to the rights of the group.

You mention rape. Just so that I am on equal footing here, where does rape occur in the animal kingdom? It is important to note that despite your source of "truth" has no prohibition against rape and the construct you worship actually encouraged rape. So despite the utter bollocks that your bible feeds to the vulnerable and weak, we as a society have moved on from that stone age fairy tale to recognize that rape is wrong in our society (well unless you live in the certain areas of the world governed by equally fictional religious fairy tales.).

(16-04-2013 09:27 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote: I see. So no one here understand God's omnipotence in context. Take your Christian choice of 1) He foreordains all 2) His will does not countermand our free will, in the same way that I have children and want them to exercise free will rather than beat them down and make them mindless robots.

Of course, NO ONE has yet responded to my question, "How can you say rape is wrong from a purely naturalistic standpoint since forcible intercourse is frequent in the natural world?"

Thanks.

# 1 and #2, in any rational person's mind are incompatible. An oxymoron. Is your god "omniscient" ? If so, there is no "free will". There is only one choice. The ONE she knows is the "planned outcome". Either your idiot god "has a plan", or there is "free will". Which is it ?

We are not confined to "Christian choices". You may be. Too bad for you.
Neuroscience has proven there is no free will. Decisions have been proven to be made before we are conscious of them, by MRI and PET scans. When will you get an education ?

Insufferable know-it-all.
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche

(16-04-2013 09:27 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote: I see. So no one here understand God's omnipotence in context. Take your Christian choice of 1) He foreordains all 2) His will does not countermand our free will, in the same way that I have children and want them to exercise free will rather than beat them down and make them mindless robots.

Of course, NO ONE has yet responded to my question, "How can you say rape is wrong from a purely naturalistic standpoint since forcible intercourse is frequent in the natural world?"

Thanks.

# 1 and #2, in any rational person's mind are incompatible. An oxymoron. Is your god "omniscient" ? If so, there is no "free will". There is only one choice. The ONE she knows is the "planned outcome". Either your idiot god "has a plan", or there is "free will". Which is it ?

We are not confined to "Christian choices". You may be. Too bad for you.
Neuroscience has proven there is no free will. Decisions have been [roven to be made before we are conscious of them, by MRI and PET scans. When will you get an education ?

Note: We need a thread on free will. Your statement is too strong.

My coffee, however, is just right.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.

Quote:Initiating force/violence against another human being is immoral.

A false syllogism since the initial premise is utterly false.

How can you say that? How can you even use the word immoral? Are you sure you didn't mean to write "unethical"?

Initiating force/violence against another creature is done in the natural world for:

*Food
*Shelter
*MATING RIGHTS AND PRIVILIGES
*Pack leadership
*Etc.

Rape is fine if you're a Darwinist. Go ahead and tell us all why it's otherwise, please.

Actually rape is not ok if one is a Darwinist. The smooth functioning of the group requires respect for the other members of the group, which promotes a safe environment for one's own offspring. Thus rape is not acceptable.
Another dishonest simplistic strawman put up by the uneducated Christian. Have you ever considered taling a course in Anthropology, SexuallyPleasingJebusJoke ?
BTW 95 % of prison inmates in the US self-identify themselves as Christian. Your premise is false. Morality does not originate in the gods. Neither do ANY of the laws/proscriptions in the Bible. (The Bible took EVERY single one of their laws FROM culture, NOT the other way around. SHow me ONE law that was NOT in the culture, that the Bible initiated. Non-Biblical societies/cultures do not permit rape.

Insufferable know-it-all.
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche

(16-04-2013 11:28 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote: # 1 and #2, in any rational person's mind are incompatible. An oxymoron. Is your god "omniscient" ? If so, there is no "free will". There is only one choice. The ONE she knows is the "planned outcome". Either your idiot god "has a plan", or there is "free will". Which is it ?

We are not confined to "Christian choices". You may be. Too bad for you.
Neuroscience has proven there is no free will. Decisions have been [roven to be made before we are conscious of them, by MRI and PET scans. When will you get an education ?

Note: We need a thread on free will. Your statement is too strong.

My coffee, however, is just right.

Perhaps. We've done that to death. One's options are limited. We are not "free" to do "anything. The final decision is often made before we are 100% conscious of it.

Insufferable know-it-all.
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche